Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard

Welcome — ask about reliability of sources in context!

Before posting, check the archives and list of perennial sources for prior discussions. Context is important: supply the source, the article it is used in, and the claim it supports. Additional notes: RFCs for deprecation, blacklisting, or other classification should not be opened unless the source is widely used and has been repeatedly discussed. Consensus is assessed based on the weight of policy-based arguments. While the consensus of several editors can generally be relied upon, answers are not policy. This page is not a forum for general discussions unrelated to the reliability of sources. Start a new discussion

Westeros.org. Again

Does Westeros.Org, a self-declared fansite without editorial oversight constitute a reliable source for the Game of Thrones tv series based upon the fact that two of the fansite's owners unofficially and intermittently act as a continuity source for some of the members of the writing staff? If so, under what conditions could they be utilized as a source? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 14:15, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

It's been argued that Westeros.org meets the WP:SPS criteria for an expert source. About Us. Its authors, Antonsson and Garcia, have co-authored a book on the tv show's source material with series creator George Martin [1][2]. They have produced articles about the series for MTV Geek, Tor, and Suvudu. Game of Thrones writer Bryan Cogman referred to Westeros.org as "a tremendous resource." [3] Garcia responded to a request for information[4]. He said that he and Antonsson have worked as "informal and unofficial" consultants on the show but that they are not employees of HBO. Further details upon request.

This page from Westeros.org is being used to support this text in the Wikipedia article Oathkeeper. Garcia confirmed that he and Antonsson wrote that page themselves. Darkfrog24 (talk) 14:47, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Disclosure: Jack Sebastian and Darkfrog24 are two participants in a multi-editor content dispute. Consensus was reached to seek outside input on the RS noticeboard.

I'd point out that this material exists solely via user-created sources. No single reliable source has noted all of the aforementioned links to the book except in passing. This also highlights the concern that the material is but crufty details. I am sure that the good folks at the fan forums for Harry Potter, Star Wars' Expanded Universe and the Doctor Who series are of use to the writers/directors/producers of those series, but it is the latter that creates the material. We don't start out with a preferred phrasing and spend months trying to find barely adequate sources to protect them - that's backwards. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 18:22, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Actually, no. Off the top of my head, I've seen it in 538, Slate, AV Club, i09, and other sources. There's similar content in Spark Notes. It's also in the books itself, which is where I originally found it. That's not backwards.

All GA-rated Game of Thrones articles have single-line chapter lists and they all use phrasing very similar to this. All of them.

Jack, I request that you remove your most recent comment so that newcomers feel more comfortable adding their opinions here. You were the one complaining about walls of text. If you do so, I give permission for you to delete this comment of mine at the same time.

This section needs an unbiased header. If you don't like "Fan site or expert site?" then suggest one in the appropriate thread at talk:Oathkeeper. Darkfrog24 (talk) 18:58, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

The subject of Westeros.Org has come up twice before (back in May and again earlier this month). I should know; I've submitted both queries. The title accurately reflects the issue, and I apologize for not previously linking the earlier conversations. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 00:50, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

This header is a complaint. It biases newcomers and poisons the well. We want the regulars here to think that this thread is worth their time, and complaining suggests that it is not. If you want this RSN to count we have to do it right. If you don't like "Fan or expert," then we should just delete the "again" and say "Westeros.org" by itself. Doniago would probably appreciate that; he says he likes things concise. Darkfrog24 (talk) 01:28, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

No, it is not a valid source. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:05, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

@TheRedPenOfDoom:Can you please expound upon that? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:21, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Oops, i dont know what i was looking at when i wrote that. When I went back to find what had triggered my response all i found were things that lined up with what's outlined in the requirements for using a WP:SPS -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 01:02, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Wait, @TheRedPenOfDoom:, are you saying you do think the source meets the SPS criteria or just that you were talking about something else?

Either way, now that you're here, could you guys take a look? WP:SPS is actually the policy in question. Do you think Antonsson and Garcia's other published work qualifies their self-published website as an acceptable expert source? If your concern is a reputation for fact-checking, they did do some fact-checking for the guy who wrote the books. Darkfrog24 (talk) 01:28, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

It sounds like it this site may be an authority on matters of continuity. However, there are other issues, such as due weight. Fan sites will spend inordinate amounts of time analyzing trivia and other minor details; these are not appropriate for an encyclopedia entry. That issue can be resolved with other forms of dispute resolution, such as the NPOV noticeboard or an RFC. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:00, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

We could certainly deal with those issues if need be, but I'm pretty sure coverage of this particular material in other secondary sources and the treatment of this material in GA-rated articles would address them. Darkfrog24 (talk) 21:10, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

• I'm mostly in agreement with NinjaRobotPirate. It is a reliable SPS for issues of continuity, but care must be taken not to confuse coverage by Westeros.org with making a subject notable.--v/r - TP 23:50, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

So if the text in question were supported by, say, Westeros.org and an article in Slate or AV Club... Darkfrog24 (talk) 01:21, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

The non-Westeros.org sites would be preferred. I'm not sure of the reliability of avclub. Higher quality sources are always preferred above SPS.--v/r - TP 01:27, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

AV Club was used elsewhere in the article without incident, but there have complaints have been made about it and about Slate in this specific case. Darkfrog24 (talk) 01:52, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

• AV Club has passed FAC reviews before, though generally for their reviews (see, for instance, the featured X-Files episodes). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:54, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

The complaint that Darkfrog24 alludes to regards the use by Slate, AV Club and another source of a Reddit table that some (unidentifed) fan put together that shows all the chapters per episode. The sources were not making the statements; they were simply discussing the phenomenae of how involved in the series that fans were. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 01:58, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

[This issue is rebutted and discussed further in the sub-section below the break. Please post comments on that issue there and comments on Westeros.org in the main section. Thank you.]

break

(edit conflict)TParis has noted a point of view that has come up repeatedly in the Oathkeeper discussion (not by me) that, were the information about chapter-to-episode comparisons truly noteworthy, it would be covered by someone outside of a fansite. While there have been sources that comment on a similarity here and there, those sources were not fansites. And they weren't these somewhat crufty lists of synthetic comparisons, either.

The continued request for reliable, secondary and explicit sources from Darkfrog24 was to help her learn that not everything is noteworthy. Four months later, she has not learned this lesson, nor of following a consensus. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 01:55, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

It actually is covered at other sites. Please acknowledge that there is a difference between disagreeing with you and "not learning a lesson." It is no more your job to teach me than it is mine to teach you. One of the problems with this content dispute is that you keep expecting me to not only take your word for it but to prefer your opinion to what I can see for myself. But you shouldn't have to take my word for it either. Since you brought it up, here is a list of people who thought chapter information was important enough to cover:

• AV Club
• Slate (they actually thought it was important enough to write up twice; here's the older one)
• i09 (also twice; one of these is a chart and one is not)
• Forbes (partial, Breaker of Chains)
• FiveThirtyEight (partial Oathkeeper specifically, concept generally)
• the reviewers of every GA-rated article about a Game of Thrones episode: Baelor ([5]) ([6]) Cripples, Bastards, and Broken Things ([7][Fire and Blood (Game of Thrones)] ([8] [9]) A Golden Crown ([10]) The Kingsroad ([11]) Lord_Snow#Writing ([12]) The Pointy End ([13]) Winter Is Coming ([14]) The Wolf and the Lion ([15]) ([16]) You Win or You Die [17]) (Links in parentheses are the versions at the time of GA listing and reassessment, if any; chapter information was always retained.)
• Just found this other site, PandaWhale, while I was looking up the Slate link. Never seen it before, but it seems to be the older version [18].

RSN regulars—if you feel this is too off-topic, I'll remove it upon request. But the claim that this material isn't covered elsewhere is not valid. Darkfrog24 (talk) 02:55, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

If necessary, I'll point out the problems that others (this isn't about me) found with each of the listed links, not the least of which is that one or two of the sources do in fact note a chapter connection to an episode. That was in fact added to the article in prose form. That said, I'll avoid the wall of text eventuality that inevitably occurs in any conversation where Darkfrog24 is a participant, unless asked by someone else here. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 03:21, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Here is my take on this: Westeros.org is a fansite, run by two people who sometimes (and quite unofficially) act as helpers in terms of fact-checking for the writers of the series. This is an SPS. Overlooking for a moment that fansites are very often rife with speculation and outright false wish fulfillment, we are overlooking the main point that fansites contain crufty information that wouldn't be considered noteworthy to anyone who isn't a fan. Our readers cannot be assumed to be huge fans, and those of them that actually are know where to go to get that sort of information. We do not write for them; we write for the average reader.

Sidestepping the forum-shopping, my other problem with this effort by the only other user truly interested in adding this information is that he is working the process backwards. She saw the chapter-to-episode connection early on, and was reverted when she sought to add it. She has been looking for references to cite it ever since. Most of these sources are unsatisfactory according to our own policies and guidelines. My frustration with this is that a fairly solid consensus of users do not think this material is important enough to include. The reasoning behind this is that most of the references in support of this information are from forum sites, or fanclubs, or blog posts from reviewers who wouldn't pass the sniff test for fandom or fakery. I am frustrated with Darkfrog's continued shouting that the consensus is wrong, and she is right - pretty much counter to WP:CONSENSUS. Towards that end, she has spread her concerns far and wide. She didn't get approval through DRN. She didn't get approval through not one but two RfCs. She inundates noticeboards like this with walls of text talking about how horrible everyone is for not appreciating her efforts. So yeah, I find Darkfrog24 a net negative to the Project, and I am not alone in that assessment - at least three others have all but given up on working GoT articles because of her insistence that we are all stupid for not agreeing with her.

At least one of the owners of Westeros.org are maybe noteworthy when they are cited outside of Westeros.org. But citing them within their personal blogsite for factual information is like deciding our content based on Twitter feeds. It is contrary to our role as an encyclopedia to pander to fansites. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 15:21, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Oh, and the refs provided? We should take a closer look at those, too:

• AV Club, Slate and Panda all use the same Reddit user-created table to point out how fans are deeply involved in the series. The references do not represent the content.
• io9 has some pretty useful content in their main area, despite the previous concerns raised in RSN archives about their parent company, Gawker Media. However, the noted reference comes from their forum, called Observation Deck.
• Forbes has a great write-up about another episode, "Breaker of Chains". The partial information about a chapter fromt he book used was incorporated into the article. I know, because I am the one who did it. There is no chapter listing there, and no reference to Westeros.org or "Oathkeeper" at all.
• FiveThirtyEight's mention of a single chapter usage in the episode was incorporated into the article, again by myself, even though I missed it when someone else introduced it.
• The GA articles which contained information from Westeros.org must have slipped through the cracks during the nomination process, as they fail WP:GACR, most notably, the refernce information (several of the references in these articles do not reflect the content they are citing). But then, they are GA, not FA. I am somewhat convinced that a fansite reference wouldn't survive the FA nomination process -and that's why we edit, right? To make the best, most neutral articles we can. Usiong a fansite isn't neutral; its pandering. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 15:40, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

[Post to which Jack is responding below was moved due to edit conflict; see below.]

Err, are you equating Stephen Hawking talking about rock hard science with the whimsical Sherlcoking of a fansite owner? Really. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 16:14, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Jack, if you don't want "walls of text about how horrible people are" then stop writing them. You don't want long responses to accusations? Stop making accusations. Don't attack me and then complain when I defend myself. I'm also not sure that this is the right place for you to be making these claims. If you agree to delete this post you've just made, then I give permission for you to delete my response here at the same time.

It's possible that not everything on Westeros.org is suitable for inclusion here, but this content is. Reasons above in my last post.

I did start from a source—the book. Just because I started from a source that Jack doesn't like doesn't mean I'm doing anything backwards.

The consensus on talk:Oathkeeper is not that the content is "not important enough" to include but that more sources are required. So I've been finding more sources. I have also repeatedly asked other participants if they have any objections to this material other than sourcing. Verbatim upon request, but I keep getting "No" from them, including from Jack. Jack, it's one thing if you're changing your mind about why you don't like this content, but do not claim that this has been your position all along. Or you can admit that you lied to me when I asked you about your objections and apologize for wasting our time by keeping this dispute going in the wrong direction. Don't complain that I keep finding new sources when you repeatedly demanded that I do so.

Most of the eight or so sources I've provided are from news outlets. Two, including Westeros.org, were from fansites.

I have never called you or anyone in this dispute stupid. I have never implied that you were stupid. I haven't called your edits or reasoning stupid. The harshest term I had for DQ or Doniago is "guys who don't agree with me."

Back to Westeros.org: That's not how WP:SPS works, Jack. Say Stephen Hawking writes his own website about physics. Because Stephen Hawking is an established expert who's been published elsewhere, the things that he says about physics on that web site are usable. Darkfrog24 (talk) 16:08, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

• AV Club, Slate, and i09 all cite the content; they all thought chapters were important enough to list ant talk about. Ergo, it is important enough for Wikipedia to talk about.
• Forbes and FiveThirtyEight also thought that chapters were important enough to name and talk about.
• "GA reviewers must have made a mistake" is an assumption. There are three possibilities: 1) GA reviewers saw this content, thought it was appropriate and deliberately kept it. 2) GA reviewers would have deleted it if they'd noticed it but missed it (which indicates that it's at least not taking up inordinate space). 3) GA reviewers did not care about this content one way or the other. This isn't a huge unsolvable mystery: If this is really an issue, we can just ask them. Darkfrog24 (talk) 16:24, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

[Response to Jack's post; see above] Elio Garcia is no Stephen Hawking or Richard Feynman, but Game of Thrones isn't theoretical physics or rocket science. (Similarly, I wouldn't call Feynman an expert on GoT, not unless those zombies are way more awesome than I thought!) If you would like a non-hypothetical example, the blog Language Log gets cited a lot on Wikipedia. Because its authors have PhDs in linguistics and have been published in the journals of their field, their blog posts are also usable on Wikipedia. The other publications (linguistics journals; Garcia and Antonsson's books and articles) prove that they are experts, so what they produce is expert content. In that case, "the field" is publications that talk about linguistics. In this case "the field" is publications that talk about Game of Thrones. Have Antonsson and Garcia produced third-party content that is acceptable for use on Wikipedia? Yes, their book and their outside articles. So their self-published content is acceptable too. But you don't have to take my word for it. You can always ask ...well I guess that's what we're doing now. Darkfrog24 (talk) 16:24, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Jack I have a request. I've separated our back-and-forth into a subsection. I think that the two of us should keep it in here (or even delete all this entirely) so that new people will not be discouraged from adding their input above. Considering that both respondents so far have said that Westeros.org is reliable, this may be in your interest. Repeat: Jack, if you see fit to delete this whole sub-section, you have my permission.

If you would prefer that the subsection have a different header, feel free to suggest one. Darkfrog24 (talk) 16:33, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Just realized a collapse might be appropriate here. Anyone who doesn't like that has my permission to revert. If anyone wants their digression posts to be more visible, put them below the bottom of the collapse, and move the bottom tag after say 24 hours. Darkfrog24 (talk) 00:10, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

I've removed it, replacing it with an 'arbitrary break' subsection. It has the virtue of concealing no one's post, but allowing it to be cordoned off if others don't want to see it.- Jack Sebastian (talk) 20:57, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Eh, I still prefer the collapse and reference to digression. The break isn't arbitrary, after all. I feel this ranty back-and-forth we've got going here may be discouraging new participants from taking this matter seriously. I don't consider these matters we're discussing trivial (in case that's not clear from all the attention I've paid them here and elsewhere), I don't feel this is the place for them. The instructions up top say not to talk about issues other than reliability here. Besides, most of this stuff is covered in your second post and mine at the beginning of this thread. Darkfrog24 (talk) 02:56, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

It's been pointed out that you don't have to respond with a wall of text. Physician, heal thyself. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 14:11, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

If you post a long rant accusing me of misconduct, then yes, I have to respond. You don't have to post long rants accusing me of misconduct.

Similar note: Since you clearly don't have a problem with changing headers that other people wrote, please remove the biased "Again" from the head of this filing. Darkfrog24 (talk) 15:32, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

You deleted a post of mine there, Jack, probably by accident.

There. I hope we can both agree that "break" is both neutral and implies nothing false. I chose this site by topic but also because it gave you both the last word one one thread and the first in the next. Like I said, I'm trying to keep things fair. If you'd prefer it somewhere else, then where? Darkfrog24 (talk) 18:20, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Let's just leave it in keeping how other people use breaks. Arbitrary in this instance doesn't refer to being argumentative, but instead, without any real reason. Break by itself is insufficient.

And you don't need to "keep" things fair, Darkfrog24. They are fair. Now, lets see if some of this newfound collaborative spirit carries into someplace else. Are yoiu prepared to stop arguing against consensus and recognize the fact that the material doesn't appear to be notable enough to list in the article? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 20:49, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

EDIT: I just realized that there is a better place to discuss the wording of this thread: The talk page. Kindly join me. Darkfrog24 (talk) 23:03, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Arbitrary break 2: In a nutshell

Apart from the personality hurdles that often arise when two or more editors differ in opinion, the problems I see with considering Westeros.org a usable source are as follows:

1. It is a theme park slippery slide: allowing content from largely user-created sources sets us up for wide-spread problems in both the short- and long-term. While one of the owners of the website has in fact written a book on GRRM's world, we have no proof (apart from the one person favoring it) that it is he who is writing the articles in Westeros.org that some are seeking to draw references from. How about when further comparisons come up between GoT and Star Wars? How bout who the different characters should have been cast with? Who should end up with who at the end? Where do we draw the line?
2. It is also a question of noteworthiness: one of the problems with starting out with a statement that you desperately want to have in the article is finding a source for it (which is actually backwards). When that source largely does not exist in any other source but fancruft, that should be a large-type warning sign that your information isn't considered noteworthy.
3. WP:IAR is not a suicide pact: Just because the fansite has been used in a small number of GA articles doesn't mean that those articles should have that info in there. Looking at the information that was sourced to Westeros.org indicates the large amount of cruft and relatively useless information that was crammed in for no other purpose than to pad the article. I suspect that they won't make it through FA candidacy with them there. Ignoring or bending our sourcing policy to the breaking point is counterproductive.
4. Most of this problem could be resolved with an external link: The strongest advocate for inclusion of fansite info claims that the reader might want to know this information. If this is truly the case, then we provide a link to Westeros.org where the ep is crufted about in detail and be done with it. If the reader is indeed looking for that fine level of detail, it is our responsibility to point them in the right direction. We are an encyclopedia, not a fan-source warehouse.

I wanted to take a moment to apologize for the strongly negative reaction I presented last week here. While I personally feel that the advocate for this information has been gaming the system for four months to get what she wants, it isn't my place to point it out. If you can't or won't see the truth of it, there is little I can do about it. In my defense, I am one of the few remaining editors (there used to be at least 8 of us) who endured for four months this editor ignoring consensus, offering fan forum blogs or fake sources. I watch her schmoozing it up with key editors and am frustrated that you can't see the game she is running on you. That is as much a part of the problem as the source being provided, but I should have presented it in a calmer manner. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 15:43, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

1. Westeros.org has been used on Wikipedia for years, usually very stably. If there were a slippery slope, we would have seen some slipping by now.
2. Noteworthiness is addressed by the treatment of this material in other reliable sources such as Slate, AV Club, and Forbes. Its presence in every other GA-rated article on this subject suggests a wider Wikipedia consensus for its inclusion.
3. IAR is not in play, nor has anyone advocated for its use. Please do not argue matters that are not in dispute as if they were.
4. Those actions are not mutually exclusive. We could provide the information and an external link. While a single sentence listing relevant chapters is sufficiently important for inclusion on Wikipedia, Westeros.org also contains a great deal of information on the subject that may also be of interest to readers but does not meet that threshold.

You keep saying, "Find more sources." I find more sources. If that's gaming the system, everyone should play.

Please check your numbers before you post, Jack. It's advocateS, plural. This dispute has five longstanding participants, three against inclusion and two for inclusion, not eight against one.

I'm pretty sure the bot archives discussions based on the date of the last post, so posting here has artificially prolonged the life of this thread. I will support deletion of this post of mine if you delete that post of yours at the same time.

Please make no further accusations against me here. If you truly believe that any of this holds water, then go through proper channels. I have many complaints about your conduct as well. Darkfrog24 (talk) 19:04, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

In favor of using the statements (and therefore of using references that support them): DonQuixote, Donlago, Balaenoptera musculus, FormerIP, Scoobydunk, NinjaRobotPirate, TAnthony, TParis, Crisco 1492, Tutelary and myself.

In favor of using the statements: Diego and Darkfrog24.

As has been said before, Darkfrog24 did indeed keep bringing sources: fanblogs, forum reviews and even one faked source. There was one or two good sources, and they were incorporated into the article. When I suggest that you are gaming the system, I am stating that running to RSN, DRN or ANI every time your latest blog source isn't allowed seems designed to wear down the dissent to the content you have been trying to add for four months.

And its working. Of the five original active editors in the article, only three remain (Donlago, Darkfrog24 and myself); the rest chased away by your constant bickering and text walls and forum-shopping. I think the only reason I remain is that by allowing a fansite to be given equal footing with the sorts of sources we normally allow, we are allowing the trivial to replace the substantive. I think this is important.

That said, I would support an external link to Westeros.org, for those readers who want to delve more into what fans are saying. I do not support using it as a source for claims made within the article. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 04:25, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

No, I did not bring in a fake source. I brought in a source that you didn't like. I also brought in Forbes, FiveThirtyEight, Slate, AV Club, i09 (two from i09, actually) and others, and yes, one of them was a blog, which I posted here for evaluation.

"Running to RSN" was Doniago's idea. You also insisted on it. You also posted several filings about sources here on your own.

Please do not misprepresent things. Scooby and TAnthony and most of the others were not weighing in on whether the article should include the disputed text at all, only on whether a specific source to do so (in which case leaving out people like InedibleHulk and others who supported inclusion is misleading). You have similarly misrepresented other people's positions. If you want to know what these people think, go and ask them.

As for ANI, I reported you exactly once for repeatedly referring to my contributions as feces after you'd been asked to stop twice and for making misleading edits on GA-rated articles about the use of Westeros.org.

This thread has gotten off-topic. If you have anything else to say that is not about the reliability or unreliability Westeros.org, please post it somewhere else, like the Oathkeeper talk page, my talk page, or the talk page of this noticeboard. If you are serious in your belief that I have engaged in tendentious editing, then go through proper channels. Accusations about me do not belong here. Darkfrog24 (talk) 10:00, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

They do if you are gaming the system. Now, you have a choice: you can throw yet another wall of text of slightly reworded, identical text of how you are bringing in all these sources which we unfairly consider to be useless, or you can be silent, and trust the others here to make a solid evaluation, or post another wall of text-y drama. I personally do not believe you can stop yourself, but we shall see. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 21:21, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

I realize that the bickering is distracting, but it would be nice to get some informed, neutral inoput on this matter. One of the reasons that two users are so vocal in their opinions is that so very few others have offered their input. Please help out a bit. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 14:01, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

5 points:

• I am participating in this thread in the desperate hope that one or both of you will return the favor and dig into my own thread below about the Lucy Burns Institute, which also has been languishing. Interestingly, even though they're in completely different article spaces, there's some overlap on the RS issues.
• A major reason this thread hasn't received more attention from uninvolved editors is that both of your posts are too long. Please keep them short and confined to the subject of the discussion.
• On the reliability of Westeros.org, I agree with TRPoD and NRP that Westeros.org is, per the "expert" exception to WP:SPS, a reliable source for details of the Game of Thrones series. I also agree that, as a fansite, it's not an independent source and is therefore not a reliable source for (1) anything appearing to promote the series, or for (2) determining the notability of the article subject. In other words, Westeros should be treated as an WP:ABOUTSELF source. Following from this:
• Any material appearing in Westeros.org that also appears in an independent reliable source (such as Slate), should be sourced to the independent source, not to Westeros.org.
• Material that only appears in Westeros.org may be included and sourced to Westeros.org as long as (1) it appears to be noteworthy and does not violate WP:BALASPS and (2) the coverage as a whole does not rely primarily on any combination of Westeros.org, other fansites, and/or other ABOUTSELF sources.

I hope this helps, now please, if you will, consider looking at my thread. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:44, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the input, DrFleischman. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 20:23, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Other viewpoints? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 14:04, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

So, what the takeaway from DrFleischman's post is that while Westeros.org qualifies as an 'expert' exception to SPS, we find it difficult to use as a source because it isn't neutral about its interest in the content and has a CoI regarding the usage of its material. Additionally, Dr. Fleischman points out that if we can use another source, we should - but only after determining whether the information is noteworthy.

Protonk, in closing a Proposal in the article discussion, seems to reflect some of this view:

" I think there's a general consensus to avoid drawing conclusions from sources like the above infographic for specific claims in the article, but I don't see a good reason to restrict claims to "explicit" comparisons made on a per episode or per chapter basis. If, for example, someone published a book with the same content as that infographic but formatted in a different way (i.e. pointing to page numbers and episode times instead of drawing points on a plot) we're better off relying on a review of that source and the claims we want to make in light of OR/SYN/RS than pointing to an old discussion with ~5 participants to disallow its use entirely."¹

While Protonk was not discussing the usability of this source in the article (nor voting on the matter), I find the administrator's closing words on the matter germane to the discussion here.

There is a point, imo (and my experience in participating in other discussions of this nature), where one has to accept the consensus is what it is for now. Over the course of four months, one editor has pushed exclusively for a way to include information in the article wherein a consensus currently exists to not use it. Consensus can change, but a push for that change isn't supposed to happen moments after the consensus emerges and remerges time and again. This RSN section, and others like it, have been proxy fights to get that info in. It would seem that consensus should be taken into consideration. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 17:06, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Jack Sebastian, Dr. Fleischman didn't say it was "difficult to use this source", they said it was "a reliable source for details of the Game of Thrones series." You've turned their advice on its head. Fleischman also quite rightly pointed out that you're contributing to this being a never-ending tug-of-war. I think if the main two editors represented here weren't involved, this whole thing would have gone as smoothly as the "badassdigest" thread below. This isn't properly a "reliable source" issue anymore, with multiple editors agreeing that there's a case for "expert status" on this ersatz pop culture issue. Experts don't have to be "neutral" on an issue. Now there may be other issues, but the "reliable source" one seems to have been assessed here. __ E L A Q U E A T E 17:24, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Agree with this comment by Elaqueate. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:53, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Holy crap, you're right, Elaqueate - he didn't say 'difficult to use this source'. That was probably me, taking the whole of the user's response into account; I've stricken that wording. Dr. Fleischman said we should treat the source as an ABOUTSELF, and opt for an independent source if both it and Westeros.org say the same thing. The editor also pointed out the noteworthiness of the material being sourced should be considered, though that noteworthiness isn't really something to address here.

As for my participation in this "tug of war", I should point out that I wasn't the one who repeatedly went forum-shopping for a pet version of the article; lets keep things in perspective, please. We don't need to repeat fancruft into an article when we can simply direct the reader to an External Link, should they wish to explore that route. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 17:44, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Correct, noteworthiness is a balance issue. It can only be addressed by looking at the article as a whole and is beyond the scope of this noticeboard. It belongs on the article talk page and, if necessary, can go to other DR forums (not here). --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:53, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

The material in question seems to involve basic facts about the book, and not intended to promote the series or support the notability of the television episode. That makes it isn't neutral about its interest in the content moot as experts aren't required to be neutral if they also have some reputation for topic-accuracy among independent sources (side example: bird scientists can be super keen on the general subject of birds, specific birds, and can be publicly enthusiastic about their own scientific theories). This doesn't seem to be a reliable source question any more. __ E L A Q U E A T E 18:22, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Bingo! --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:31, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Jack, this is not the place to accuse me of forum-shopping or anything else. Coming to the RSN was Doniago's idea, and I happened to agree with it.

@Elaqueate:, @DrFleischman:, we started an RfC on this matter when it looked like this thread wasn't going to get any more comments. If either of you want to weigh in, you're welcome to. In any case, am I correct in thinking that you both feel this is more of a weight issue than a reliability issue? Darkfrog24 (talk) 14:13, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Speaking just for myself, yes it's more of a weight issue, but also a promotion issue. An article that relies too heavily on ABOUTSELF sources ends up reading like an advertisement, even if the prose itself is neutral. Hence the 5th prong of WP:ABOUTSELF. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:21, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

I doubt that you'd find Oathkeeper unencyclopedic. Most of the sources in the article are things like IGN, The A.V. Club, and Entertainment Weekly, whose reliability isn't generally questioned. Most of the article is undisputed. It's only this one line that's the subject of any fuss, and even it is mostly about out-of-universe perspective. Darkfrog24 (talk) 20:18, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Known issues section of Nexus 5

The known issues section of Nexus 5 was removed because none of the sources are considered valid. could an independent party check them one by one?

"333 Årsboken", assembled by a Scanian foundation in Sweden

Source "333 Årsboken", 15 different authors from the most part of the 20th Century, assembled and published by "Stiftelsen Skånsk Framtid" or "SSF" (a litterar translation for these three words are "the foundation, Scanian, future"), published in 1991, Swedish ISBN 91-7586-384-7. List of authors:

• Lars Larson
• Carl Liljenberg
• Stig Larsén & Ingvar Rydzén
• Uno Röndahl
• K. Arne Blom
• Berndt David Assarsson
• Helmer Lång
• Wilhelm Moberg
• Werner Persson
• Peter Broberg
• Arne Källsbo
• Göran Hansson
• Johs. Christensen
• Victor Andreasen
• Richard Willerslev

Most of the authors has no involvement in SSF, some of them were dead long before this foundation even was started. Most of them are/were Swedish citizens, but some contributers are Danish.

It was published 333 years after the Treaty of Roskilde 1658, in which the Swedish Crown took over the three Danish provinces Scania, Halland and Blekinge aswll as Bornholm island. (Several wars followed and the Danish armies was then supported by Scanians. Some enlisted for the Danish Army, while others , especially in the areas around the former Danish-Swedish border acted alone. They were labeled Snapphanar by the Swedes) While Bornholm returned to Denmark in Treaty of Copenhagen 1660, the three provinces were included in Sweden in 1719 and the last peace treaty between Sweden and Denmark was signed in Stockholm 3rd July 1720 it's sometimes labeled as the Third peace treaty of Stockholm.

The different topics of the book cover Scania, Scanian history, the enforced re-nationalisation of the provinces , known as the Swedification. Danish-Scanian relationships, Swedish-Scanian relationships, Swedish-Danish relationships, both as of 1991 as of times before. The Danish era, the wars, and the Swedish era. Some authors believes in a stronger regionalisation of Sweden, which is a rather centralised nation, and where Stockholm is "the natural core". Many of the authors describe historical events, like Uno Röndahl who contributes with "The bloodbath at Klågerup" in 1811, the last recorded military assult on the Scanian civil population. While f.i. Helmer Lång discusses the Scanian dialect. Primary - The official Swedish interpretation of Scanian history, as "natural borders", "Scania was lucky to became a part of Sweden rather than of Denmark" is challanged, from several perspectives and different times of history. Wilhelm Moberg shows how the history of Scania has been falsified.

Problem is that Peter find this book automatically "inappropriate" also in Wikipedia's Global perspective. And his reason for this is "the publishing SSF are political extremists. However this foundation isn't political. It's not a political party nor a movement, to me it seems most closesly related to a Gentleman's club, unrelated to left or right on the usual political scale. And besides - they have not written its contence. I can only give one concrete example of Peter's criticism, the mentioned article about "Klågerup's Bloodbath", here the author (Uno Röndahl) refers to official Swedish archives, regarding the number of killed civilians and later the public amputations (of right hand) followed by beheading, of convicted rebels at a square in Malmö.

Info about the assembly and publishing "Stiftelsen Skånsk Framtid" or "SSF" and some history of Scania is available in English at

www.scania.org

The SSF foundation surelly cannot compare at the slightest of extremistic organisations or movements. The foundations primary aim seems to be enlightenment of Scanian history, and Scanian dialect.

I realise that the book, when and if, used as source, must be in line with the Wikipedia article topic and common criteria. But this request deals with Peter general ban of this book and his mentioned reasons why.

Possible articles where some of the book's articles and authors can be used - Scania, Skåneland, Scandinavia-history, Sweden-history, Denmark-history, Swedish language, Scanian dialect etc. Boeing720 (talk) 21:09, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Please note that I have never referred to SSF as "political extremists". Those are Boeing's words, not mine.

Peter ^Isotalo 21:28, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Not during our debates the last week, but around a year ago or so.Boeing720 (talk) 22:10, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Lemme know when you have the diff to prove it.

Peter ^Isotalo 22:40, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

I may have confused You with and other user, but if it was You (perhaps a year ago or so), then I'm not "the detective" to attempt to trace it far back in time. If You honnestly can say, You have never stated SSF to be "political" or "extreme" , then I apologize, and believe You. But why do You then concider "333 Årsboken" and Uno Röndahl to be "unimpropriate as source", for instance about "The Swedish military Bloodbath in Klågeröd 1811" ? You have written "do not use such inappropriate sources as "333 Årsboken", have You not ? Boeing720 (talk) 05:23, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

You can simply search talkpages if you want to find stuff. I have no reason to call an organization like SSF "extremist", though. They merely have a political agenda (claiming to be unpolitical doesn't make you that) that is clearly separatist. That's problem number one, and here's a clear example of it taken directly from the introduction to 333-årsboken:

Stiftelsen vill peka på att det i en stat som den svenska inte finns plats för kulturell regional mångfald. Det skånska problemet lever vidare genom mediatystnad, förlöjligande och ständiga ansträngningar att pressa saken ner på rännstensnivå.Det är kanske så att skånelandsregionen är vår världs bästa exempel på historiskt förtryck, långvarigt förtigande och modern kollektiv självcensur i ett välmående samhälle.

Translation: "The foundation wishes to point out that in a state like the Swedish one, there is no place for cultural regional diversity. The Scanian problem lives on through media silence, ridicule and constant efforts to push the problem down to a gutter level. It might be that the Skåneland region is our world's best example of historic oppression, prolonged suppression and modern collective self-censorship in healthy society."

In the same introduction they compare Scanians with everything from Catalans to Inuits, a very, very far-fetched idea since even Swedes and Danes are extremely similar culturally, socially, linguistically. The Inuit comparison (they're an indigenous people) is downright ridiculous and even the parallel to Catalans shows a serious lack of perspective.

And problem number two is that none of the writers appear to be recognized in the field of Scandinavian history. At least none of the texts actually represent mainstream historical research. It can be used as a source for separatist or strongly pro-Scanian (and anti-Swedish) opinions, but not for neutral descriptions of the region's history. It's an anthology that openly propagates a the POV of a small minority, not a generally acknowledged aspect of Scanian history. No Swedish historian denies the harsh assimilation of Scania, the brutal nature of the guerilla war in the 1670s and 1710s, etc. But they don't recognize the unsubstantiated and exaggerated claims about the uniqueness of Scanian culture. As far as I know, most Scanians today don't even share this view.

Peter ^Isotalo 08:34, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

We are mainly discussing "333 Årsboken" as a possible soucre, not SSF. SSF has only assembled the book. As I have stated "333 Årsbokon" challanges parts of Swedish history, but its autors do it by mention things "forgotten" by other autors. I think SSF has made some good choices in exampifying such lacking parts. But in "333 Årsboken" or its at the world wide webb in English published there is no political agenda. Sweden has indeed during several centuries by force has attempted to re-nationalize the three former Danish provinces, Scania, Halland and Blekinge. This wasn't "a nice thing to do" and their success isn't full, which any reader of "333-Årsboken" will discover. This is especially true for Scania, where people often travels to Helsingør for shopping or to Copenhagen for its many attractions. And through Danish television, of which all DR channels are available. Also Danish TV2 is offered through analogue cable. You may not like it, or the parts that SSF published in 1991. I cannot see a problem in the statement You use as an example.

But this has no bearing on the question of the book is reliable as a source or not.

It seem to me, You wan't to ban not only SSF but also "333 Årsboken", which only is assembled by SSF. Now - please, I do not accuse anyone of being a Stalinist. But Your ban of "333 Årsboken" would I like to compare to a Stalinist that want's to ban Simon Sebag Montefiore's "Stalin: The Court of the Red Tsar", and who bases this on something he/she might have found out about the publisher. (Although the real troble is that the Stalinist doesn't likes what Montefiore has written). I say it again, I do not believe You to be a Stalinist, but the allegory is how I perceive you in this matter. And since You seem to reject all authors that SSF has assembled in "333 Årsboken", I presume You will put a ban to all history wrighting based at a Scanian, rather than Stockholm-Swedish perspective. I do not believe there is a Wikipedia policy of f.i. prohibit Scotish, Catalan, Kurdistan or Scanian perspectives in history wrighting. And again SSF only has assembled different kind of works related to the 333 year period between Treaty of Roskilde 1658 and its publishing in 1991.

Without any real knowlidge about SSF, in Your translation "The foundation wishes to point out that in a state like the Swedish one, there is no place for cultural regional diversity. The Scanian problem lives on through media silence, ridicule and constant efforts to push the problem down to a gutter level. It might be that the Skåneland region is our world's best example of historic oppression, prolonged suppression and modern collective self-censorship in healthy society" - I fully agree.

And I can give very good examples of this aswell. In my home town, at its northbound entrance/exit street , the street bends some 30 degrees. The area around this place is well-known as "Hvilan", there are (and has been) many shops that has used "Hvilan" in its name. But some years ago "Skånetrafiken" the regional collective coordinators labeled the bus stop as "Vilan" (not "Hvilan"). This spelling has caused a lot of harm in the town, and I would say that among 100 people that i born in Landskrona or has lived here a long time, all preferrs the spelling "Hvilan" in this case, though it has absolutely nothing to do with our Danish time (the bend didn't exist in 1720), but still the civil servant boss in Hässleholm won't listen to the local people and population and continues to spell the bus stop wrong. It actually looks bizzare, bus stop "Vilan" and right behind it, is an off-liecence store called "Hvilans Servicebutik" located, even the immigrant who ownes it, has adapted the local (and thereby true) spelling. I could give You endless similar examples that support what You have found out to be an "SSF-oppinion".

You can trace a certain Scanian oppinion, at the very few occations when the people has been given a possibility to vote in something which actually can be related to "Scanian issues" in any respect. Sweden has held a total of six referendums, I think. The matters of left or right side driving, ATP-pension and Neuclear power plants, were not of that kind. But the first ever referendum about alcohol prohibitation, in 1921 or 1922 was, if You have a look at regional numbers (in this very tight result ; around 49.5% Yes - 50.5% no nation wide) - Western Scania, or Malmöhus län as of then [and Stockholm City] voted 75% (or more) No. One explination is that generally Scanians, like Danes are liberal in alcohol related matters. And almost every Scanian finds the free sell of beer, wine and liquor in Denmark uncontroversial. Also in the 1994 referendums of Sweden joining the European Union, Scanians voted also around 75% for joining the EU (being closer to the continent, is my guess. Brussels isn't that far away, and just a little bit longer than what Stockholm is). And in the referendum about the Euro, if Scanians had decided alone, we would have had the Euro today (Sililar reason). And there were the local referendum in Sjöbo in 1988, about wether that municipality would host refugees or not. To the Stockholmian horror, some 70-80% voted no, and very soon the entire (some 15.000) population in Sjöbo was accused of being racists, it could not have happened anywhere else but in Sjöbo [actually a true TV-formulation], and for a while "Sjöbo" as such became an invective in the nation wide media. And also in the Stockholm-owned and controlled regional media. I'm not saying I would have voted as most did in Sjöbo in 1988. But the aftermath became a verbal terror on that small municipality. Also in 2006 when SD [party against immigration], in the local election in Landskrona got 22% of the votes, immidiatly the town got full of "explaining and examining" journalists from the central power in Stockholm. When the Swedish football cup final in 1984, between Malmö FF and Landskrona BoIS wasn't played in Stockholm, but at Olympia, in Helsingborg, not even the result was mentioned in the TV-sport news ! And I recall when 17.000 out of 30.000 (figure came from the Police)local people, in my home town, protested againt closing the Öresundsvarvet shipyard in february 1978, the "Rapport" TV-news mentioned nothing about it, but instead mentioned a demonstration at Sergels Torg, Stockholm, with 400 people (what about, I don't know) Clearly 400 Stockholmers were concidered more importaint than 17.000 Scanians. And don't You believe that I am the only one who has such oppression memories. The SSF statement is a Bull's eye of truth.

[By the way - When Denmark won Euro 1992 (in Sweden), I was watching the final (Gemany - Denmark 0-2) on great screen at Rådhuspladsen in Copenhagen. There were many other Scanians present, but at the ferry (Scarlett Line sailed from Tuborg, northern Copenhagen to my home town, Landskrona. Though it was the last departure, it was crowded by Swedish/Scanian people who all were very glad, and at home everywhere happy people in red-white colours sang and drank beer. Only very few appeared to be envious.] Boeing720 (talk) 01:50, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

his Further You resemble the historical Swedish oppression of Scania, and its language/dialect, culture and indeed history. To modern day Scanian life, this is no big matter, however it isn't forgetten either. In my oppinion You want to put a ban on all historical authors whose work You disapprove of.

As before, you don't have a single neutral backup source. There is not a shred of relevant evidence from reliable sources to describe modern-day Scania as an oppressed region. Your only contributions are long-winded outpourings of random personal reflections, anecdotes an extreme bias towards interpreting everything as a Stockholm-based conspiracy.

You're clearly trying to violate WP:NPOV. Please stop trying to use Wikipedia as a platform for your personal opinions.

Peter ^Isotalo 18:05, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

No I don't think so, in this case. I just attempted enlighten You about the Scanian problem. And to explain how and why I find Your examplification of "SSF exaggeration" - to be the actual truth and not at all exaggerations. The Catalan example resembles Scania rather well, with the exception that Scanian isn't a writing language. But it could just as easilly become a writing language - just like Serbian and Croation no longer is "Serbocroatian".

But about SSF, I don't know more about the foundation than You do, and what they have stated at their webbsite www.scania.org ,anyhow - "333 Årsboken" is only assembled by this foundation, nothing else. There are several similar foundations or organisations by the way. Like Danish-Scanian association www.danskskaanskforening.dk/, Skåneland Friskytten https://sites.google.com/site/skanelandsksamling//aeldre-dokument-fraan-fsf/tidningen-skaaneland-friskytten etc. (Search and You will find more)I do not state that everything such foundations, associations or organisations write automatically becomes reliable sources, but thats doesn't mean they automatically are unreliable either. Each source must be evaluated seperatly. And atleast "333 Årsboken" cannot be written off as potential source, only because You think so. By the way - if You watched the Champions League qualifier Malmö FF - FC Red Bull Salzburg (3-0), howcome do You believe there were not a single Swedish flag in the audience, but lots of Scanian ones but outside the stadium there were Swedish and Austrian flags at the official flagpoles ? Boeing720 (talk) 00:03, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

This is the extent to which Scanian is considered a separate language: pig-headed requests from random Saanians who lack any substantial support for their claims. It's all about persistence and skewed ideas about what actually constitutes threatened languages or cultures. I personally find most of this campaigning to be in rather poor taste. There are genuinely endangered local languages in Sweden like Elfdalian (not even recognized) and Sami (recognized but with few speakers). There are also dialects that border on separate langauges like kalixmål or Österbotten variants of Finland Swedish. Unlike Scanian, they are can be almost incomprehensible to other Swedish speakers. Most of these have no more than 10,000 speakers and will most likely be gone within two generations.

Some very localized forms of Scanian are at most a bit hard to follow (like any other dialects), but never moreso than, say, English from the southern United States. This can be confirmed with just about any basic linguistic work on Swedish, like Garlén (1988) Svenskans fonologi or Dahl & Edlund (2010) Svensk Nationalatlas: Språken i Sverige. But you keep touting your own fairly ordinary regional dialect of Swedish with well over a million speakers as "oppressed" by referring to Dano-Swedish strife that ceased sometime in the 18th century. I find this stance to be both ignorant and self-aggrandizing. Scanian is not unique or suppressed any more than other regional cultural expressions in Sweden and you have zero reliable sources to back up your claims to the contrary. The only real difference is that a small minority of Scanians, like yourself, have an unusually inflated sense of self-importance.

Peter ^Isotalo 07:10, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

• Could either of you please provide one or two examples of where Boeing720 uses the 333 årsboken as a source, to save people having to root around for it? I can imagine contexts where it would be a reliable source — as Peter suggests above, for separatist or strongly pro-Scanian (and anti-Swedish) opinions. (Though not indeed as a neutral third-party source.) Bishonen | talk 09:47, 11 September 2014 (UTC).

  Here is a use relating to the "Klågerup riots" in 1811. This addition was reverted and discussed at talk:Skåneland#Dubious sources and limits of historical description. 333-årsboken is one of several sources that I have pointed to as problematic. Skåneland does not attempt to make any serious descriptions of Scanian separatism (which would be very interesting). Peter ^Isotalo 10:16, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

I have not been aware of the previous discussion. What Peter Isosalo ever thinks about "333 Årsboken" it is only assembled by the SSF foundation. And Uno Röndahl's part (about Klågeråds Bloodbath 1811) was indeed very easy to find other sources of. We cannot rule out the book as potential source, like in the case of Klågeröds blooldbath based on Peter Isosalo's ideas on "Stiftelsen Skånsk Framtid". Each part and author must be treated separately and its context in relation to what it is supposed to support, just like other historical sources. It's the possible general ban I disapprove of Boeing720 (talk) 05:44, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

If you want each text to be treated separately, you must be prepared to quote it from its original context and publication. Quoting an openly separatist anthology will automatically attach a separatist POV to it.

Peter ^Isotalo 22:19, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

I believe SSF to possibly have some thoughts about reginalism( like many others, in other parts of Sweden and in other nations, the EU seems rather fond of regions). But the main issue still isn't SSF, but their assembled articles by a number of different authors. The different articles (and their authors) should be delt with as any other possible source. (But for that matter also direct SSF statements can be used as source, if they provide further reliable sources). Some "333 Årsboken" articles do challanges parts of common Swedish history wrighting, Yes. Is that a problem in itself ? Independant of their sources or not ? For lingvistical matters, there may be better litterature on Scanian. But in historical matters is this a previously never before questioned book of importance (published 23 years ago). The quality of the work cannot be doubted, not in general anyway. Have You even read it ?

For instance, the (possibly) rounded figures from Klågeröds bloodbath, is (if that's the case) rounded by the Swedish military back in 1811. This becommes clear when reading that part. Do You suggest I should dig in archives myself instead ? - That would be OR indeed. This in not the place to put OR vs POV ultimatums, in order to miscredit a potential souce, which You possibly find "inappropriate". However if an article gives no further source, that perticulary article may though become doubtful or even unusable. In that I can agree. But where sources are clearly given, "333 Årsboken" is mainly a historical collection, and ought to be used as a such. And each author / article must be delt with seperately, and yet again - SSF has only collected older articles and assebled this book 333 years after the treaty of Roskilde in 1658, so its authors, like Wilhelm Moberg can not be given any "automatical POV"-status, as You suggest. I do however not intend to use it in lingvistical articles, if that's some comfort for You

Boeing720 (talk) 02:56, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

If you want to write about Swedish history, you use the works of established historians as they will actually represent recognized perspectives in the field of history. You never rely on anthologies assembled by tiny fringe organizations with an openly separatist agenda. That you concede that SSF has "thoughts about regionalism" is an extreme understatement; they compare Scanians with Catalans, Basques and even Croatians.

Here are some examples of mainstream works by Swedish and Danish authors that are specifically about Scanian history:

• Skånes historia by Sten Skansjö[19]
• Kampen om Skåne, edited by Göran Rystad[20]
• Skåne mellem dansk og svensk by Paul Erik Engelhardt[21]

Even a commissioned work like Danmark og Sverige - danskere og svenskere[22] would be preferable to anything collected by SSF.

Peter ^Isotalo 22:01, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

References

APGNation & Gamenosh

This is pertaining to GamerGate, both have been said to not be established RS, and we are unsure of.

For the specific articles, \apgnation has an interview with TFYC, who were a catalyst of the situation, and they tell their story.

\gamenosh is recounting facts that have come up from the Phil Fish hack, which points toward possible corruption in an indie game competition.

Would there be any problems with these, since they do not dive to much, if any, into opinions? PseudoSomething (talk) 23:33, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

GamesNosh is not a reliable source, given that it has apparently only existed for two months, has an editorial staff of one and "is a wholly owned website and content platform maintained and created by Christopher Heeley." That would make it a self-published source, inappropriate for claims about living people. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 00:13, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

You say, since they do not dive to much, if any, into opinions? The APG article is a first person interview, that's almost completely primary-source opinions about what happened and should be considered an account written by people who are directly involved. The source generally needs to have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy demonstrated for any part beyond the WP:PRIMARY claims in the interview.__ E L A Q U E A T E 01:30, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

I spoke wrong it seems. I was relating it to be more of a primary source than an opinion piece, you said it correctly. Thank you.

So, is APGNation a reliable source?

I'd consider it a reliable source. See their \About Us page They have staff who have various tertiary-education English credentials. One of them even has a journalism degree. From their autobiographies it's clear they are knowledgeable about gaming. The website's been up for a year. Willhesucceed (talk) 09:02, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't see an established track record of independent reporting or wide citation among other sources . I'll defer to Wikiproject Video Gaming on whether it's useful for games stuff, but I wouldn't consider it reliable for issues relating to living people. We have far better sources for living people stuff. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 09:39, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

michael brown RFC

The following RFC Talk:Shooting_of_Michael_Brown#RfC:_Should_article_mention_Brown_had_no_.28adult.29_criminal_record.3F could use additional input from uninvolved editors. Gaijin42 (talk) 02:25, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

MSN Money net worth on Ali Khamenei

[23] is used in the "personal life" section as a source of Ali Khamenei's net worth. Is this reliable, is this allowed for BLP? Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 10:58, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

MSN Money is usually reliable, and this particular article is attributed to "Canadian Business online staff," but is this saying that some of the information comes from the search engine Bing? Or is that a staffer's nickname? Darkfrog24 (talk) 14:22, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

It's not actually an article, just an information card. Too informal for potentially sensitive information in a BLP. Itsmejudith (talk) 08:24, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

This is a tertiary source and therefore not recommended. While this publication puts his net worth at $30 billion, different sources have different estimates.[24] Of course these can only be estimates, because it is based on investments whose actual value can only be estimated. Better to use an article that explains where they get their info, such as this article in Reuters. (I think it is the basis for other estimates.) It is not clear whether this wealth is his personal property, since it is legally owned by Setad. TFD (talk) 17:42, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

http://www.ibtimes.com/irans-supreme-leader-ayatollah-khamenei-multi-billionaire-bmw-car-dealer-1233899

His personal net worth is about $40 billion. Government owned Setad is worth over $100 billion.--Trodbowl (talk) 01:14, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Rockabilly.nl and .peggyleediscography.com

Are this and this sources reliable to be used on Wikipedia? The second one is also included on Peggy Lee's official website (here at the bottom of the page). I Am... ***D.D. 14:42, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Re Rockabilly.nl, the clearest link to use is http://www.rockabilly.nl/references/references.htm There is a lengthy list of biographical articles, many written by Dik de Heer. In my experience of using that site to help start (literally) hundreds of articles here, it is highly reliable and written by experts with decades of experience in its specialist field. Of course, as with all such sites, caution needs to be exercised. However, it is far, far more reliable on details than other more general sites such as (one example) Allmusic.com. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:17, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Russian intervention in Ukraine 2014

This [25] is being used as a RS in lede. It's not a reliable site, and an opinion piece, it seems. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 14:58, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

The source is reliable. And it's not an "opinion piece", it's mostly reporting with a bit of analysis thrown in. The actual text that is being discussed is a factual claim, not somebody's opinion. Volunteer Marek  15:27, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

The source might be reliable, but looks at first glance at least rather partisan (see the funding of the TOL magazine and the affiliation of the author). A more reputable and less partisan is certainly to be preferred for the lead.--Kmhkmh (talk) 21:41, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

The quote supported is, "Valentina Melnikova, head of the Russian Union of Committees of Soldiers’ Mothers, said that conscripts may have been forced to sign contracts before being sent to Ukraine." Why is this in the lead anyway? It is not even a confirmed fact. And conscripts are not "forced to sign contracts". They are "conscripted", i.e., forced to serve - it is not a contractual arrangement.

When news events are widely covered internationally, then the best approach is to read the New York Times or any of dozens of other leading media, find out what they say and put it into the article, using them as sources. Why are we using an aricle by a human rights activist in an Eastern European online publication? This rings alarm bells for cherry-picking, where an editor decides what they want to appear in an article and then searches for sources. Is Halya Coynash writing as a reporter for Transitions Online, subject to normal fact-checking, or is she writing as a representative of the Kharkiv Human Rights Protection Group?

TFD (talk) 16:57, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

• I agree that it does not belong in the lead, for the reasons that TFD mentions. Perhaps it may be warranted elsewhere, but certainly not the lead. RGloucester — ☎ 17:03, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

I agree that while this source may not be unreliable in itself, it shouldn't be used as an only source. Rather, it can serve as one source among others, and what we write in the article is based on what the sources collectively say, not what individual sources choose to point out. The New York Times, of course, isn't unbiased either but is usable nonetheless, treated properly. The lead for it's part is then based on the balance of what the article says. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 17:48, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Using multiple sources for the same fact is a form of fact-checking. The reason we use reliable sources is that they already use fact-checking. The problem I find with multiple sources, other than it makes articles hard to read, is that it puts a tremendous burden on anyone challenging them. Anyone can add 15 sources they have not read and force anyone challenging them to read through, research and comment on each and every one of them. Whether or not a source is biased is irrelevant to whether it is reliable. I have little doubt that Melnikova made the comments attributed to her, although I would have more confidence were it from a better known source. However, the best place to verify it is her organization's website. The real issue is whether it is significant. TFD (talk) 19:00, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Ali Khamenei wikileaks as a source

• In the Ali Khamenei article Wikileaks is used, with an anonymous source, to describe the health condition of Ali Khamenei. This is the soured [26]. Does this belong in a BLP? Thank you. Ism schism (talk) 00:22, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

No. This is a primary source. If a mainstream news source has picked this information up and republished it, then that would probably be reliable. Itsmejudith (talk) 07:27, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Reviews section of The Weight of Chains

An editor wishes to insert text in the 'Review/Critical response' section for the film The Weight of Chains article section here:- [27]

The text he wishes to insert is:-

"The Raindance Film Festival, in association with VICE magazine, wrote a review of the film, describing it as "a sardonic look at how US foreign policy brought about the demise of Yugoslavia in the late 80s." According to the review, the film is "elegantly edited", and "makes the whole documentary feel like a history lesson as relayed by an endearing teacher with an average sense of humour." The review notes that, in the film, "experts tell grim stories about how fractured groups of people were exploited by power-hungry domestic leaders" and that "soon Yugoslavia is in the grip of one of history's most heartbreaking periods of civil war and ethnic cleansing."

The citation he wishes to use is:-Raindance Film Festival 2011 - Reviews! by VICE

Note, on the VICE site which this link leads to, if you click on 'more details' on the Weight of Chains section, this leads you to the Raindance Festival 'blurb' on the film, (the bulk of the text is credited to 'VICE Staff').

The basis of the disagreement is whether the VICE link and the 'blurb' is actually, meaningfully, reliably a VICE review - rather than a VICE/Raindance ad, which may or may not come, in whole or in part - intact or selectively quoted from a 'real' independent review, and indeed, whether VICE online is itself a RS. In short is the above text justified by the source ?

Comments welcome, either here (Ping please) or on the article talk page, here:- [28] Pincrete (talk) 13:18, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

@Pincrete: The blurb is not a review, and while I don't think the article would be harmed by linking to it, it should not be referred to as a review or quoted from; especially the marketing hyperbole. EllenCT (talk) 01:45, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

I agree. bobrayner (talk) 19:34, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

It shouldn't be used in the article. It is somewhat of a promo piece, stating, "To celebrate our partnership with the festival" -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 22:15, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Is the American Bird Conservancy an advocacy group?

Source

Pierre Mineau; Cynthia Palmer (March 2013). "The Impact of the Nation's Most Widely Used Insecticides on Birds" (PDF). Neonicotinoid Insecticides and Birds. American Bird Conservancy. Retrieved 19 March 2013.

Article

Neonicotinoid

Context

"In March 2013, the American Bird Conservancy published a review of 200 studies on neonicotinoids calling for a ban on neonicotinoid use as seed treatments because of their toxicity to birds, aquatic invertebrates, and other wildlife."

The edit summary on removal says that the American Bird Conservancy is an "advocacy group" and the book did not undergo peer review. WP:MEDRS says that WP:SECONDARY monographs by experts are the highest quality sources even if their entire books are not peer reviewed. Which is this one? EllenCT (talk) 22:58, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

I would think it's a reliable source from a notable POV. It is an advocacy group so I'd use it with a citation, but I can't see grounds for removing it. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 23:39, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)My initial thoughts are yes, they are an advocacy group, but I don't think that means they cannot be cited, especially if we use in-text attribution. BTW, this appears to be been reported on by mainstream news outlets[29] so you can cite the report itself as well as news coverage. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:42, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

This very topic was already discussed at this board here previously out of my curiosity on how such sources are intentionally (or unintentionally used), but no action was taken at the time: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_174#Reliability_of_reviews_of_scientific_literature_put_out_by_advocacy_groups.3F

The main issue is that the source fails multiple aspects of WP:NOTGOODSOURCE. It is self published, it has no peer-review, and is coming from an advocacy group. Essentially, we don't have an acceptable source for scientific content here. Nor is it something that should be called a review in that context. We normally don't consider a source reliable for scientific content for much lesser or fewer problems, so it's looking like it would be an extremely uphill battle to try to say it's an acceptable source in this context. I should also note that no discussion even occurred at the article talk page on the most recent round of edits before this post was made, so there won't be any background discussion to find yet. Kingofaces43 (talk) 00:22, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

As long as we use in-text attribution, I don't see a problem, especially when the report has received coverage from independent, third-party reliable sources. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:32, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Except we are talking about scientific content here, so news organizations are not considered third-party reliable sources in this case. Depending on whether someone is taking a natural sciences approach, or the veterinary medicine approach, WP:SCIRS or WP:MEDRS outline how reliable scientific sources are different from the coverage you are describing that we use for sources in general topics. I'd especially point out the White and Grey literature section in SCIRS:

"Advocacy organizations formed for a specific purpose or to advance a cause may be composed of scientists and mimic the structure and naming conventions of the general purpose societies. Statements and reports from such organizations are not reliable except to cite the organization's opinion or position. If such statements are necessary to the coverage of a topic, they should be attributed and the role of the organization made clear."

Self publishing and lack of peer-review are sometimes acceptable here when reputable organizations such as government scientific agencies, scientific professional organizations, etc. put out informal reviews or statement pieces. Groups furthering a cause though, regardless of the virtue of that cause, aren't afforded that same respect because they have a stronger potential bias that could be influencing their review or statements. If they went and submitted their review to a peer-reviewed journal and got it published, then we'd have a generally reliable source, but without peer-review or independent third party publishing like you get in a journal, we're left with a statement by an organization that's the equivalent of a blog post from a science content perspective. Kingofaces43 (talk) 04:40, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

As you just noted per our policies, the report is reliable "to cite the organization's opinion and position," precisely so. And the secondary-source coverage demonstrates that the organization's opinion is of public interest and a significant point of view in a public controversy about the chemical's environmental impacts. There are several other reliable sources discussing the controversy. We should ensure that the statement is properly cited to the organization, but I don't see grounds for removing it entirely. We are not prohibited from including notable points of view in articles about chemicals. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:24, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

There are two different things going on that are important to separate: 1. Use as a secondary source. 2. Use as an opinion.

1. Our job in scientific articles is to especially use sources reliable for scientific content. Not doing so can quickly run afoul of WP:NPOV, WP:FRINGE, etc. in contentious topics. In this case, it seems very apparent this source is not appropriate for a scientific statement, especially factoring in what SCIRS says about it above, so we shouldn't be commenting on the science with this source in the article. This is primarily what I've taken issue with, and haven't seen any strong reason to say a "review" was done (review tends to connote a peer-reviewed review article we consider very reliable) with the reliability issues above in mind.

2. Using the source as an opinion is a slightly different issue that hasn't really been in contention yet, but I do agree the source is reliable for documenting that the group called for a ban. Whether this should be included in the article is a different question (e.g., why this organization and not listing all the others that want a ban for whatever reason) that should be discussed back over at the article.

So, for anyone out there, does it sound reasonable, given the above, to say the source isn't reliable for the scientific content of the article, but that it is reliable for the American Bird Conservancy's stance on a ban? Kingofaces43 (talk) 06:38, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

That's precisely how the source is currently used in the article. In March 2013, the American Bird Conservancy published a review of 200 studies on neonicotinoids calling for a ban on neonicotinoid use as seed treatments because of their toxicity to birds, aquatic invertebrates, and other wildlife. That is in-text sourced to the organization, making it clear that it's the organization's POV. So if you're saying the current wording in the article is satisfactory, I agree. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:56, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Not quite. With what I was suggesting above, saying the ABC called for a ban on the seed treatments would be fine from a reliability standpoint. Their findings on the other hand, would not be presented because the source would not be reliable for scientific content. Basically, it's ok to say they want a ban because they think toxicity for certain organisms poses a suitable risk, but it's not ok to give weight to the idea they did a literature review/study. Kingofaces43 (talk) 07:22, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Well, I disagree. So long as we clearly state that the findings are the organization's opinion, it should remain in. To not mention that the organization states that it has a scientific basis for its position amounts to telling a half-truth. If there are rebuttals to the organization's findings, we should publish those too. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 07:29, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

I disagree as well. Perhaps, this dispute can be resolved by qualifying ABC's claims. For example, how about In March 2013, the American Bird Conservancy published a review of 200 studies on neonicotinoids calling for a ban on neonicotinoid use as seed treatments because of their alleged toxicity to birds, aquatic invertebrates, and other wildlife.? This makes it more clear that this is ABC's opinion and not a scientific consensus. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:32, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Except doing so would violate NPOV, because it is not clear the content is not about scientific consensus. If something is not addressing scientific content, we should not make it appear like it is by giving it undue weight. It may seem like I'm being picky, subtle changes in wording have wide implications in scientific content. Simply saying a review was done has special meaning and is attributing towards fact, which WP:RSOPINION makes that pretty clear that we don't do. There are small nuances in language when dealing with scientific content, so statements of opinion need to be carefully crafted to avoid overreaching what we can use the source for that result in huge changes in meaning. That's why the two parts of your proposal need to be separated as I outlined above. If we are assuming that the source is unreliable for scientific content, but fine for an opinion then we need a much more condensed sentence only commenting on the statement of opinion such as, "The American Bird Conservancy has called for a ban on neonicotinoid use as seed treatments because of their alleged toxicity to birds, aquatic invertebrates, and other wildlife."

I could say more on how Wikipedia addresses scientific content if it helps, but does it seem like we're on the same page about how content about studies and related content are handled? I'm not sure how familiar some folks are here with how we generally have much tighter standards for weighting scientific content than more general content on Wikipedia, so I want to make sure that's not a point of confusion. Kingofaces43 (talk) 15:43, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

"Alleged" is a red flag per WP:ALLEGED. Why not turn the thing on its head? For example, how about In March 2013, the American Bird Conservancy published a review of 200 studies on neonicotinoids, concluding that they are toxic to birds, aquatic invertebrates, and other wildlife. The group called for a ban on the use of neonicotinoids in seed treatments. ? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:08, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that sounds fine. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:02, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

I concur. That text establishes the according-to-whom of the matter very well. Darkfrog24 (talk) 17:54, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

The first sentence would need to be struck, but the last sentence in essence would be fine by adding "due to concerns of toxicity to birds, aquatic invertebrates, and other wildlife." The word concern would alleviate the red flag issue. This would also open us up to using sources that establish notability of that opinion without having to refer to this contested source, and thereby not appear to be accepting the source as reliable for scientific content.

The problem is that the group did not publish a study we can consider reliable as I described above for scientific content. We don't use unreliable sources in scientific content even with attribution as an opinion, but rather just strike them all together typically. The opinion is that they want the ban, and it is that opinion that most everyone here agrees is fine to include. The issue is that saying they did a study or review is undue weight for the source for scientific content. As a parallel, this comes up a lot when we deal with WP:FRINGE/PS. The core that informs that guideline that applies outside of fringe topics as well is that we don't present low quality sources alongside high quality sources and make the unreliable source appear as if it's contributing to the scientific consensus. That usually means we don't list any assertion of fact from that "study", or mention that a "study" was done at all unless we have proper scientific attribution that the source is flawed.

So, again, there are two things going on in the original content. The opinion portion isn't under contention, but it's the scientific content weight issue that's key here that's really affecting content. So far, we've established the group is an advocacy group, and WP:SCIRS states, "Statements and reports from such organizations are not reliable except to cite the organization's opinion or position." Since we should only be citing the organization's opinion or we should have a concise statement of the opinion, and nothing more. With that, The American Bird Conservancy called for a ban on the use of neonicotinoids in seed treatments due to concerns of toxicity to birds, aquatic invertebrates, and other wildlife. seems like a reasonable end to this conversation with reliability of scientific content, and of an organization's opinion being considered. Does this seem like a reasonable approach, especially when substituting for a source that establishes notability of the opinion only? Kingofaces43 (talk) 19:29, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

How about, The American Bird Conservancy published a review of 200 studies calling for a ban on the use of neonicotinoids in seed treatments due to concerns about toxicity to birds, aquatic invertebrates, and other wildlife. Both of the authors are prestigious scientists with academic and government backgrounds involved heavily with scientific review of environmental toxicity articles, so they meet the requirement of a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy necessary to state that they performed a review instead of simply issuing a position paper. EllenCT (talk) 19:57, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

We don't use author notoriety to determine reliability for scientific content when summarizing consensus (it's a form of original research on our part), especially when we have the underlying reliability issues of the source itself, regardless of authors, that I've outlined above. Kingofaces43 (talk) 20:41, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

WP:SCIRS is only an essay; it is not policy or even a guideline and has no real standing. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:21, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

The Next Web

• Source: Weber, Harrison (21 December 2011). "ExtraFile: Databending and corrupt files as art". The Next Web. Archived from the original on 28 July 2014. Retrieved 28 July 2014. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)
• Article: Databending
• Content: Users on Vimeo who deal explicitly with databending and glitch art in general exist, and a Chicago-based digital art project named GLI.TC/H was funded using Kickstarter in 2011

Is "The Next Web" a reliable source? It's cited in the article Databending, a DYK nominated article. Thanks. Hybernator (talk) 00:29, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Per [30] TheNextWeb appears to be staffed by several professional journalists and various web searches indicate that they do serious fact-checking and retractions when they get things wrong, so I'm okay with including. The article is of such trivial social significance that I think the risk of error on the side of helping people learn more about something obscure is minimal. EllenCT (talk) 01:37, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant – Israel

In the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant article, editors wish to add Israel to the list of countries which designate the Islamic State (ISIS/ISIL) as a terrorist organisation (see para 1 of the Lead). For other countries in the Lead, government documents have been found that support such a designation – official lists of groups formally designated as terrorist organisations – but no such document can be traced for Israel. (Exampes of these are cited in the infobox in section 13 of the article.)

Editors have provided sources which they claim support such a designation by Israel, which I have listed below, but I do not believe any of them can. I do not believe second-hand reports are enough, and the source originally cited (no. 1) mentions “unlawful” not “terrorist”.

Could we have your opinion on whether any of the documents listed below would reliably support the statement that Israel has designated the Islamic State (ISIS/ISIL) as a terrorist organisation, please?

1. http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/184728#.VBaZQD9wbIW
2. http://jpupdates.com/2014/08/26/israel-moves-declare-support-isis-illegal-photo-groups-flag-appear/
3. http://mfa.gov.il/MFA/PressRoom/2014/Pages/FM-Liberman-addresses-International-Anti-Terrorism-Conference-9-Sep-2014.aspx
4. http://www.osenlaw.com/sites/default/files/uploaded/Counter-Terrorism/Key_Terrorist_Organizations/GOI1.pdf
5. http://www.mod.gov.il/
6. http://new.elfagr.org/Detail.aspx?nwsId=683441
7. http://mfa.gov.il/MFAAR/Pages/default.aspx

In that list are two Arabic sources and one Hebrew source (nos. 5-7), and a document (no. 4) which editors claim proves that “unlawful” means “terrorist” in Israeli law, but I think they have misinterpreted this document. It seems to be merely a list of organisations that the Israeli government has certified as being either unlawful or terrorist. I include these four sources on their behalf, but I don't think any of them can be used here.

If you need any clarification, please contact me; I am one of the editors on the ISIS page. --P123ct1 (talk) 09:09, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't know if this article dated 11th September here is of any help (see para 5). --P123ct1 (talk) 14:19, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

In order to help in good faith, I will fill in a critical missing translation of an Arabic reliable source [31], included above, but without the translation that I duly provided on the Article's talk page, and, since Google Translate is unreliable, I will help with the translation of "صادقت وزارة الدفاع الإسرائيلية على اعتبار (داعش) حركة إرهابية" which translates to "The Israeli Ministry of Defense approves the designation of Daa3esh as a terrorist movement". Hope this helps. This is a complicated matter for those who do not have long term insight into Middle Eastern affairs, but I am confident that there is enough reliable evidence that Israel has already declared ISIS as a terrorist organization. However, I am fine with whatever the response is given here. Worldedixor (talk) 05:00, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

lukeisback and sexherald dot com

Are "lukeisback" and "sexherald.com" WP:RS - especially for WP:BLP?

• WP search results "lukeisback"[32]
• WP search results "sexherald.com"[33]

--Lightbreather (talk) 16:28, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Definitely not RS for BLP issues. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 17:11, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

LB, it would be better if you made your post more neutrally, not strongly suggesting the answer you think is correct. The answer is going to be it depends. people whose presence in the porn industry is uncontested and uncontroversial, things like "won award X" or "was in movie X" is not really a BLP issue, and porn-centric sources are reliable for porn-news. For example, I think this diff is inappropriate [34] for true BLP issues however, they are likely not reliable. Gaijin42 (talk) 17:22, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

God knows why we still have Luke Ford sourcing/links six years after the issue was settled. "I would certainly take out the Luke Ford blog stuff - no way in hell is that site a WP:RS." --Jimbo Wales.[35] and related discussions. But we also have users who relentlessly add press releases, advertising, and giveaway/throwaway magazines whose "editorial content" caters to their advertisers' interests to porn-related bios, which is far worse than occasionally-informed blogging. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 17:24, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

• As is already stated here at the Pornography Project: "As a self-published site, it cannot be used as a reliable source. ... "However, the site sometimes provides links to some reliable sources." I've used "LukeIsBack.com" as a jumping off point to do web searches to research certain alleged facts, and I've found that many, but not all, of the facts contained on this site to be pretty easily verifiable through other, more reliable sources. I'm much less concerned about the often-repeated past quotation from Jimmy Wales since, as far as I can tell, this is Wikipedia not Jimbopedia. Should lukeisback.com be used as a reliable source in Wikipedia articles? No.

I'm not at all familiar with "sexherald.com" - it's looks mostly like some kind of review website to me. Guy1890 (talk) 20:06, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

• I'm in agreement with Guy regarding Lukeisback.com. Granted there are blogs and bloggers that have some journalistic integrity, but Luke Ford is not someone I'd generally put in that category. Also, sometimes Press Releases are some of the best sources of background information on the industry. Often if the first couple of paragraphs are ignored, which contain the promotional content, some really valuable and non-contentious material can be gleaned from these sources. According to policy Press Release cannot be used to substantiate WP:Notability, but anything else that can be verified seems to be fair game. I have no opinion or comment about sexherald.com, but on the other hand I have found links to some fantastic content in the forum for adultdvdtalk.com. That is truly the "crowd sourced" collaboration that we wish WP would be at times with regard to the adult industry. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 20:21, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Richard Hovannisian

Richard Hovannisian [removing BLP violation] is cited far too much. He has been condemned by the National Academy of Sciences of the Republic of Armenia and Yerevan State University for falsifying Armenian history. His book consistently has the goal of attributing Armenian history to other nationalities and referring to the Armenians as outsiders in their own homeland, which is why he has been accused of having political motives such as in the video I linked. Other statements by him are just plain wrong, such as the book stating (Volume II, page 432) that the first Armenian book was printed in 1660, in Holland, when in fact it was published by Hakob Meghapart in 1512, in Venice. The textbook also presents the Armenian people as newcomers and "colonists" in their own homeland who have "overran" the indigenous "Urartian" population (Vol. I, pages 23-26). Wikipedia correctly acknowledges Urartians are Armenians.

"The Armenian Progressive Students Union demands that the grossly falsified textbook The Armenian People from Ancient to Modern Times is removed from academic circulation." [36]

"Outrageous mistakes and falsifications in The Armenian People: From Ancient to Modern Times are countless. Any student, who would make such horrible mistakes during an exam, would receive an F and fail. So, how come this anti-scholastic book and its authors have continued to use this book since 1997, and even have republished it in 2004 without making ANY CORRECTIONS whatsoever? For many years, Armenian scholars from Armenia have repeatedly exposed and criticized this falsified book in their scientific publications. Yet, the chief editor continues to insist that the critics of this unscientific textbook are violating the freedom of academic expression." [37]

PanARMENIAN.Net is one of the largest online news agencies from Armenian and is very reliable. --Steverci (talk) 21:17, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

You are very much into WP:BLP violation territory here. And your understanding of "reliable sources" is peculiar. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:52, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Stephen Snoddy

Is this webpage:

• "Stephen Snoddy". Prix Pictet.

a reliable source as used in the article Stephen Snoddy for the following statements:

1. ... he and other city curators established the Manchester Gallery Consortium when the Hayward Gallery brought the British Art Show 4 to the city in 1995.
2. He also organised such shows as the first John Baldessari European Retrospective toured to the Serpentine Gallery, London and onwards onto a European tour;
3. a Bruce McLean film commission;
4. 'Sublime: Manchester Music and Design'; Edward Allington;
5. Jochen Gerz;
6. Annette Messager: Telling Tales';
7. ... during the construction of a brand new gallery as part of the £30 million Milton Keynes Theatre and Gallery complex.
8. Milton Keynes Gallery (MK G) opened on 8 October 1999 with ‘The Rudimentary Pictures’, an exhibition of 33 new works by Gilbert & George.
9. he has reviewed policies, restructured the organisation, enabled an acquisitions budget for contemporary art, opened a new 4th floor gallery, expanded the Library & Archive, developed a new sculpture terrace and increased visitor figures annually
10. He was Director of Look11, the Liverpool International Festival of Photography and Photography,

The reliability of the source has been disputed since October 2012 and it's about time this issue was settled. --RexxS (talk) 21:32, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Trial of Oscar Pistorius

1. Source: Pistorius judge 'interpreted the law incorrectly' – Deutsche Welle interview with David Dadic, South African legal expert
2. Article: Trial of Oscar Pistorius#Verdict
3. Content: "However, Judge Masipa said a reasonable person in the same circumstances would have foreseen this. In the light of this, his actions were clearly negligent [(for example in failing to alert security)]" [38]

The source is being used in an article section for the court's verdict, which Dadic apparently disagrees with, overwriting the judge's explanation for her verdict (which is sourced) and adding clarification for which we have much better sources (since added). Some other legal experts also disagree with the verdict, although they don't all agree with each other on the detail thereof. I contend that this source is essentially an opinion piece and is not a reliable source for this section of the article (although it could go in a separate reactions section with attribution). I have been challenged on this on the article talk page. Please advise if I am correct. HelenOnline 08:12, 16 September 2014 (UTC)